Does Wallpaper Decrease System Performance?


Recommended Posts

I just made a poll on weither or not people use wallpaper and got a landslide of yeses!

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=542787

now I was wondering.

I thought that if there is no wallpaper your PC goes faster as every time you minimize a window it has to load only one pixel color while if there is a wallpaper image then it has to load all thoes pixels every time.

Misconception on my part? Or is there some truth in the myth?

I just made a poll on weither or not people use wallpaper and got a landslide of yeses!

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=542787

now I was wondering.

I thought that if there is no wallpaper your PC goes faster as every time you minimize a window it has to load only one pixel color while if there is a wallpaper image then it has to load all thoes pixels every time.

Misconception on my part? Or is there some truth in the myth?

You are absolutly correct. Having wallpapers would decrease system preformance. I know this because my friend is using (believe it or not) a Pentium 1 - 133mhz computer running windows 98. Having a fullscreen wallpaper takes maybe 5 full seconds to minimize windows, because it has to loadthe wallpaper. Having a plain background, the windows minimize like normal.

I think this really is a non-issue these days with computers we have today, but just to answer your question, i'm pretty sure it reduces preformance, but if you have a good computer, its not worth mentioning.

Just to add to jordanspringer's reply, the performance impact of wallpapers is much like the performance impact of desktop icons, taskbar, quick launch, etc. They're essential and worth the soooooo tiny effect (that's on a P2 or less CPU anyway).

Wallpapers are converted to bitmaps and loaded into memory. The only instance where this would cause a performance hit is on a machine with an extremely limited amount of memory. Excessive paging would result as the wallpaper is loaded back into main memory when foreground applications are closed or minimized.

If you install Windows XP on a 64 MB machine, the wallpaper is disabled by default...there's a reason for that.

CPU power really isn't a factor here.

The system has to draw the background whether it's one color or millions. Of course one color image is going to use less ram, but it doesn't come at no expense. It's still going to use ram. Just make a bmp image the size of your screen and you'll see how much ram it takes up. For example making a one color image 1280x1024 and saving it as bmp in mspaint it is 3.75MB. Making an image using many color will result in about 4-5MB size. Not much difference in size.

making a one color image 1280x1024 and saving it as bmp in mspaint it is 3.75MB. Making an image using many color will result in about 4-5MB size

bitmaps are uncompressed and so content does not affect file size, resolution does. only compressed formats like jpeg and png take into account the actual content.

Many above post mention almost everything but you have to combine all those together to understand how much resouces the computer take.

Computer draws graphics using vector base clipping. When you open a new windows on top of the windows, the clipping becomes more and more fragmented in the cache or known as pagefile area. If you have enough RAM, these cache are not stored on the pagefile area but instead active memory. The color bit plane also a factor in speed when the pixels and bit plane are used for the first time. The other factor is the computational speed needs to recalculate the clipping area every time a clipping area is cleared off from active memory.

The process of clipping is calculate the rectangular size and area, store that clipping area in memory, and draw a new clipping on top of that. And that takes resources and yeah a little processing speed.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Universal Media Server 15.6.0 by Razvan Serea Universal Media Server is a DLNA-compliant UPnP Media Server. UMS was started by SubJunk, an official developer of PMS, in order to ensure greater stability and file-compatibility. The program streams or transcodes many different media formats with little or no configuration. It is powered by MEncoder, FFmpeg, tsMuxeR, AviSynth, MediaInfo and more, which combine to offer support for a wide range of media formats. Because it is written in Java, Universal Media Server supports all major operating systems, with versions for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X. To see a comparison of popular media servers, click here. Universal Media Server 15.6.0 changelog: General Added Discogs integration for audio metadata and UPnP Added new options for DNS resolution handling (thanks, @henry701 Henrique Campos!) Added a loading indicator to the Shared Content area on the web settings (#6037) Improved detection of sample videos Improved stability of speed test (thanks, @henry701 Henrique Campos!) Fixed support for servers with no Internet access (#6047) (thanks, @henry701 Henrique Campos!) Fixed wrong Linux yt-dlp binary being packaged (#6011) (thanks, @Pro-pra!) Fixed API lookups happening for TV series when episode lookup fails, even if the series metadata is already in the local database (#6080) Fixed JDK being used in Docker image instead of JRE (#6089) (thanks, @mvanhorn Matt Van Horn!) Fixed editing a video feed on the web settings erases the URL (#6046) (thanks, @serinekjo kjo!) Fixed docs for FFmpeg GPU support (thanks, @Harshit-dell Harshit Kumar Sahu!) Translation updates via Crowdin Dutch (97%) (thanks, Lefteye!) English (United Kingdom) (80%) (thanks, Andi Chandler!) Italian (63%) (thanks, parduz!) Portuguese (Brazilian) (67%) (thanks, Henrique Campos!) Download: Universal Media Server 15.6.0 | 157.0 MB (Open Source) Download: Other operating systems View: Universal Media Server Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • When you're in enterprise IT environment, you're kinda forced into it...otherwise I'm not touching any mail client for personal use.  I can't stand New Outlook. It's complete trash - half the features I need in (Classic) Outlook are just missing in New Outlook. I haven't talked to a single person who actually likes the new client. 
    • I think it's cute that Apple is implementing their tools at precisely the same evolutionary level as other devices' tools. In other words, I see no innovation; it's "the same but different." "Hey Siri, help me write this document about shoes." Powered by Google. "Sure thing, while we're here, can I interest you on some Nike's? They're on sale at Target right now!"
    • Walmart was still selling the Apple Watch SE 2 on Black Friday in 2024. I got 1 for my mom and one for my dad for christmas.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Very Popular
      Captain_Eric earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • One Month Later
      amusc earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      509
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      222
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      92
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      86
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      81
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!